Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-05-21

preme Court OF Louisiana upon the Con-
stitution of lS45, requiring uniformity and
equality of taxation, there can be no serious
questions as to the validity of the Act of
1852 so far as the consolidated bonds are
concerned, and the provisions made BY it
and the supplementary Act for the annual
levy of the tax of S650000 to pay the in
terest and reduce the principal. The de-
clslon upon the clauses of the Constitution
OF 1907 are corroborative of the correct
ness OF the construction originally placed
upon the clause of the Constitution of
lS4o. Whether such construction was
sound one is not an open question. In
considering the validity of the bonds the
exposition given by the highest tribunal
OF the State must be taken as correct, SO
far as the contracts made under the Act
are concerned.
Their validity and obligation cannot be
impaired by any subsequent decision alter
ing the construction. This doctrine applies
as well to the construction of a provision
OF the organic law as to the construction
OF. statute. The construction, so far as
contract obligations incurred under it are
concerned, constitutes part of the law as
much as if embodied in it.
$50 far does this doctrine extend, that
when statute of two States expressed in
the same terms are construed differently
by their highest Courts, they are treated
by us as different laws, each embodying
the particular construction of its own
State in force in accordance with it in all
cases arising under it."
Then if the same construction had been
given to the Constitution, and the Acts of
the Legislature of the State of Louisiana,
by its Supreme Court, under which the
bonds were issued, considered in Louisiana
VS.. Pilsbury, as has been put upon similar
statutes in this State by our Supreme Court,
the decision in that case would have been
the other way, and in line with MerrI-
wether vs. Garrett Q02 u S. Rep. SOD,
and the former decisions of the Supreme
Court Of this State. Then, upon princi-
pal and authority, in this State the Legis-
lature, under the Constitution, has the
power to alter or repeal city charter and
take away from the municipality all power
of taxation and all means of raising
revenue, and consequently the creditors of
the city must rely upon the good faith of
the State of which the city government is
part, for payment.
Secondiy-The right of the bond-hold-
ers to have any part Of the contingent
fund mentioned in Section 50 of the Act
transferred to the interest and sinking fund
therein provided for, was made dependent
by Section SO upon the contingency that a
surplus should remain at the close of any
fiscal year. If no surplus ever arose, none
of the contingent fund was applicable to
the payment Of either interest coupons or
bonds
There can be no rested right IN an e1pecta-
ton or contingency. This is the doctrine
upon this proposition as stated by Cooley
in his work on Constitutional Limitations,
page AS.
Acts of the Legislature, as have been
well said by Mr.. Justice Woodbury., cam
not be regarded as opposed to fundamental
axioms of legislation unless they impair
rights which are vested, because most civil
| rights are derived from public law.
And, if before the rights become vested
in particular individuals, the convenience
of the State procures amendments or re-
peals those laws, those individuals have no
cause of complaint. The power that au-
| thorlzeS or proposes to give may always re-
woke before an interest is perfected in the
donee"
| Until the surplus is in the fund the
| bondholders could have no interest in the
contingent or general fund No surplus
ever remained in that fund until after the
| thirty-sixth section of the Act of 1858 was
repealed by the Act to incorporate the city
of Sacramento, passed April %, 1868.
This Act provided for continuing the in
terest and sinking fund provided for by
Section 80 of the Act of 1858, but did not
provide for the transfer of any surplus
which might remain in the CON
| tingent fund, or, as it is called in the
| Act of 1868, the general fund, to the
| interest and sinking fund. If the bond
holders had vested right to such contin-
gent remainder it would not be possible to
charge the fund with any other burdens
than those imposed by the Act of 1853;
but the city has grown in population and
! its necessities have increased. Other Off
GERS are required than those provided for
by the Act of 1858 Under that Act a
District Attorney performed all the legal
duties for both city and county, but now a
City Attorney is required to attend to the
! legal business of the city at a salary of
-, 800 per year. Other municipal officers
are required to transact the business of the
| city. Other expenses are made necessary
TO the carrying on of the city government
which are charged upon the general fund
| but if the bondholders had a vested inter-
est in contingent surplus no other ex-
| penses Of government could be charged
upon the fund than such as were made a
charge by the Act of 1858, and thus the
city be INSTRUCTED in its government. No
| such absurd doctrine can be tolerated.
The offices of those who were charged
| with the duty to levy and collect the taxes
| under the Act of 1858 have been abolished,
and If new offices cannot be created and
| officers appointed or elected to fill them
who shall receive such salaries or compen-
sation as may be provided by the Legisla-
ture, how can the revenue be collected to
supply the several funds, including the
! interest and sinking fund? Taxes can
| only be collected by the agents of the law
charged with the duty.
The doctrine contended for by the plain
tiff Is teto de sc. 1t destroys the plaintiffs
security. 1t follows that the plaintiff had
no vested right in the expectancy that
| surplus might remain in the contingent
fund, and, as the law which provided for
transfer of any surplus to the interest
and sinking fund was repealed before there
was any surplus, the plaintiff has no right
to have any surplus in the general fund
created under the Act of 1868 transferred
to the interest and sinking fund. But
I there were claims against the general fund
at the close of the fiscal year of 1885 suf-
ticient to absorb the surplus then remain
ing in the fund.
The defendant is only the agent of the
city, and as such the custodian of the
funds and, as there is no law directing
him to transfer the surplus in the fund,
mandamus will not issue to compel him to
do it. Davis VS.. Porter, 66 Cal, esq.,
The attorneys for defendant will prepare
findings and submit them to the Court, upon
which judgment viii be entered refusing :.
mandamus. JOHN w. ARMSTRONG,
Judge Superior Court